Elizabeth Warren elected, a crushing defeat for big banks?

[gravenewworld]

Can't wait to see what she is going to do.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahto...s-big-win-is-a-crushing-defeat-for-big-banks/


Hopefully America is starting to get it right.

 

[gravenewworld]

I also wouldn't be surprised if they tried to nominate her for a presidential run in '16.

 

[turbo]

Warren can't do much on her own, but as a senator, she is much more powerful than all of us. Hopefully, her election and that of Maine's Angus King will encourage some Republicans to cross the aisle. 4 more years of NO! would be tough to take.

 

[gravenewworld]

On her own, no, but don't be surprised when she ends up on the Senate Banking committee and starts rocking the boat, which needs to be done.

 

[chemisttree]

By the time she's done with the banks, we'll be paying for parking in their lot as well as an admission fee to their lobby.

Someone always pays so that they make a profit...

 

[edward]

On her own, no, but don't be surprised when she ends up on the Senate Banking committee and starts rocking the boat, which needs to be done.

That boat needs to be rocked some of the big banks including citi group have been charged with or soon will be charged with laundering drug money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/b...y-said-to-target-us-banks.html?pagewanted=all

 

[gravenewworld]

By the time she's done with the banks, we'll be paying for parking in their lot as well as an admission fee to their lobby.

Someone always pays so that they make a profit...

Credit unions.

 

[Jack21222]

By the time she's done with the banks, we'll be paying for parking in their lot as well as an admission fee to their lobby.

Someone always pays so that they make a profit...

People actually physically go to banks still? Other than to open accounts, I mean. Everything I do is through online banking and ATMs.

 

[Angry Citizen]

By the time she's done with the banks, we'll be paying for parking in their lot as well as an admission fee to their lobby.

Someone always pays so that they make a profit...

Not if she physically limits their profit margins, in a way similar to the PPACA's limiting of insurance company profit margins. Wouldn't that be wonderful.

Elizabeth Warren is my new favorite Senator. I honestly wish she could run for President in 2016, but a) she wouldn't be politically experienced enough, and b) I really think she's too liberal. The country doesn't seem to be ready for a new FDR just yet.

Anyway, she's just one Senator, and she was elected from one of the most liberal states in the country - the same state that brought us ultra-liberals like Ted Kennedy.

 

[russ_watters]

People actually physically go to banks still? Other than to open accounts, I mean. Everything I do is through online banking and ATMs.

I think my bank (USAA) has one branch (can it be a "branch" if it is the only one?). Its in San Antonio. I've never been. I think they may be required by law to have a physical presence somewhere.

 

[Locrian]

Not if she physically limits their profit margins, in a way similar to the PPACA's limiting of insurance company profit margins.

The ACA does not limit profit margins. It sets a minimum medical loss ratio on certain lines of business.

 

[wuliheron]

We've still got republicans on the house science committee insisting the Earth is only 5,000 years old and according to the National Science Foundation one five Americans still believes the sun revolves around the earth. As much as I admire Warren she is just too radical to get much done against all the opposition and the idea of her even running for president in 2016 is a stretch.

Part of what has made Obama special is his willingness to take a more mainstream modern Christian approach to issues and to refrain from taking a strong stance on things like breaking up the banks. He's at least as much of a pragmatist as he is an idealist which is exactly what it takes to get elected and get things done right now. Hopefully Warren and others like her will learn that lesson so that some day they will find themselves in a position to actually do the things they want.

 

[ImaLooser]

Can't wait to see what she is going to do.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahto...s-big-win-is-a-crushing-defeat-for-big-banks/


Hopefully America is starting to get it right.

Hardly a crushing defeat. It is true that 99 to 1 is better than 100 to 0.

Listen to this. Politics sure was different then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjSTQwamo8M

 

[Gokul43201]

Warren can't do much on her own, but as a senator, she is much more powerful than all of us. Hopefully, her election and that of Maine's Angus King will encourage some Republicans to cross the aisle. 4 more years of NO! would be tough to take.

Ironically, King replaced one of the few Republicans that was willing to cross the aisle. Let's hope King can do the same.

Edit: Just after writing this I remembered that Warren also replaced another of the very small number of Republicans that voted against the party majority.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Ironically, King replaced one of the few Republicans that was willing to cross the aisle. Let's hope King can do the same.

Edit: Just after writing this I remembered that Warren also replaced another of the very small number of Republicans that voted against the party majority.

Thank goodness. The least intransigent Republican is still infinitely less preferable than the most conservative Democrat, and Warren is nowhere near conservative.

As for King, I think it's assured that he will be very bipartisan. The guy seems to be a Democrat through and through on many issues; he just recognizes that you have to actually pay for everything.

 

[nanosiborg]

Can't wait to see what she is going to do.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahto...s-big-win-is-a-crushing-defeat-for-big-banks/


Hopefully America is starting to get it right.

Not to be too negative, but I don't see how she's going to make any difference at all.

 

[Windowmaker]

I think its a sad day when a moderate republican is replaced by an extreme left wing. We don't need more far left or far right in congress. We need more moderates. Easier to compromise with moderates than far left/right nut cases. I am appaulled most of this thread seems to think its a sucess and a move forward.

 

[Jack21222]

I think its a sad day when a moderate republican is replaced by an extreme left wing. We don't need more far left or far right in congress. We need more moderates. Easier to compromise with moderates than far left/right nut cases. I am appaulled most of this thread seems to think its a sucess and a move forward.

The United States is an interesting case, because our "moderate Republicans" would be "extreme right wing" in most of Europe, while our "extreme left wing" would be Europe's moderate left wing. Warren wants to regulate the bankers, not seize their assets and nationalize them.

 

[mheslep]

... Warren wants to regulate the bankers, not seize their assets and nationalize them.

Regulation without bound can amount to the same thing.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I think its a sad day when a moderate republican is replaced by an extreme left wing. We don't need more far left or far right in congress.

I reject your premise- Warren isn't "an extreme left wing." Yes, her academic work has suggested that banks have committed some abuses, but seriously- after the 2008 meltdown I think even many conservatives would agree that abuses happened.

 

[mheslep]

I'd agree that abuses occurred ... mainly by government, the Fed, government pseudo banks such as Freddie and Fannie, and on the part of the government regulators who, after failing to be effective previously, Warren and others would now reward by multiplying their numbers and powers.

 

[Jack21222]

...on the part of the government regulators who, after failing to be effective previously, Warren and others would now reward by multiplying their numbers and powers.

Lol! That's like blaming the police for not preventing a murder rather than the murderer.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Regulation without bound can amount to the same thing (as seizing banks' assets and nationalizing them.)

Regulation without bound would amount to murdering bankers and their families. Has someone proposed regulation without bound?

... government regulators who, after failing to be effective previously, Warren and others would now reward by multiplying their numbers and powers.

How would multiplying their numbers and powers reward them? Wouldn't a pay increase be more effective?

 

[mheslep]

Regulation without bound would amount to murdering bankers and their families.

Maybe, depending on the regulator. Much, much more likely in my view would be bankers kept healthy and made toadies of regulators and their political masters, i.e. all made one indistinguishable mass, which was my original point.

Has someone proposed regulation without bound?

Nope. But infinite regulation is not required, is it, just galloping increases to achieve an effect similar to nationalizing a bank.

How would multiplying their numbers and powers reward them? Wouldn't a pay increase be more effective?

No. Not in government, at least per my reading and interaction with it. Higher government salaries attract attention and make easy political targets.

So instead the game is the control as much power as possible. I've met several government program managers proud not of their performance but that their program size has only increased. This is an immediate reward in itself, but the power can be and is readily monetized by simply moving from government to the private sector (and back again) where colossal salaries or book advances are offered for connections that can avoid Sauron's eye, or direct it instead on a competitor. Or, power is monetized by simply prompting political contributions.

I went on above not to suggest complete laissez faire when it comes to banks and securities firms, but to draw attention equal or more attention to government's flaws. My plan would be to break up the banks so that anyone or dozen failures would non-catastrophic for the country, and then to otherwise leave them be.

 

[mheslep]

Lol! That's like blaming the police for not preventing a murder rather than the murderer.

Do you not see *any* downside to more regulation? Even police chiefs are fired occasionally for bad outcomes. Not so federal regulators.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Nope.

In that case, your argument is an example of a logical fallacy known as 'slippery slope'. For example someone argues that it is good to drink water and the counterargument is that if you drank eight ounces of water a minute 24/7 you would die of it. You see how the counterargument is more of a way of avoiding the question than discussing it. I see your comments concerning regulation without bound as a similar dodge of the real question of regulation with bound.

 

[Jack21222]

Do you not see *any* downside to more regulation? Even police chiefs are fired occasionally for bad outcomes. Not so federal regulators.

What kind of question is this? Has anybody EVER said, in this thread or elsewhere, that there is NO downside to more regulation?

 

[mheslep]

In that case, your argument is an example of a logical fallacy known as 'slippery slope'. For example someone argues that it is good to drink water and the counterargument is that if you drank eight ounces of water a minute 24/7 you would die of it. You see how the counterargument is more of a way of avoiding the question than discussing it. I see your comments concerning regulation without bound as a similar dodge of the real question of regulation with bound.

This has gone far from the original point, counter point, which was

Point: "Warren wants to regulate the bankers, not seize their assets and nationalize them"
Counter Point: "Regulation without bound can amount to the same thing."

Or in terms of your water example above, with some context matching the regulation/nationalization points:
Point: Drinking water is perfectly safe (made by someone already guzzling a great deal of water)
Counter Point: Well hold on, drinking eight ounces of water a minute 24/7 will kill you.

Given that banking was already a very heavily regulated industry before Dodd Frank or Sen. Warren, I think pointing out the dangers of extremes is not unwarranted, and not a slippery slope argument.

I used to the phrase "without bound" to quickly show that somewhere regulation and nationalization are easily seen as equivalent. I could have said that "at some point regulation can ...", and determining that point is complicated and subjective and not that useful. More important was to shake the implied absolute claim that nationalization and regulation and always and everywhere two unrelated things regardless of the amount of regulation.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Point: "Warren wants to regulate the bankers, not seize their assets and nationalize them"
Point: Drinking water is perfectly safe (made by someone already guzzling a great deal of water)

These are not comparable unless the original had said regulation is perfectly safe. Your post #19 is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[mheslep]

These are not comparable unless the original had said regulation is perfectly safe. Your post #19 is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.

I don't see it that way, but I'll rephrase nonetheless:

Regulation of a bank at some point could become indistinguishable in effect from nationalizing a bank.

 

[Jack21222]

I don't see it that way, but I'll rephrase nonetheless:

Regulation of a bank at some point could become indistinguishable in effect from nationalizing a bank.

But nobody's proposing anything remotely that far, particularly not Elizabeth Warren, so why are you bringing this up? Just trying to derail the thread in hopes of getting it closed or something?

 

[AlephZero]

Regulation of a bank at some point could become indistinguishable in effect from nationalizing a bank.

Maybe we are "divided by a common language" here, but in the UK "nationalizing" would mean all the assets and liabilities of the bank being taken into government ownership, as with Northern Rock in the UK in 2008. But that had nothing to do with regulation per se, and in fact Northern Rock has been sold back into the private banking sector (as part of the Virgin group). The primary objective was to protect retail customer confidence and stop a run on the bank, not "regulation".

 

[turbo]

One regulation that I would dearly love to see: Banks must maintain capital reserves in excess of their speculations. If their bets turn bad, it should not fall to the US taxpayers to bail them out (again!). The big banks are great at privatizing profits while socializing losses. I hope Warren and other members of the banking committee make this a top priority.

 

[lisab]

I don't see it that way, but I'll rephrase nonetheless:

Regulation of a bank at some point could become indistinguishable in effect from nationalizing a bank.

Which could be said about anything...it's the slippery slope argument, quite plainly. And it's no reason to not regulate banks, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

Maybe we are "divided by a common language" here, but in the UK "nationalizing" would mean all the assets and liabilities of the bank being taken into government ownership, as with Northern Rock in the UK in 2008...

[my bold]. Sure, I suppose that is the common understanding, and federal regulators regularly seize financial firms in the US in the traditional sense as you describe.

The definition of 'ownership' is the problem, at least in the banking business, before anyone admits to seizing anthing. My understanding of ownership entails the ability to control a thing and especially the ability to sell it. So then, if a third party, tentatively not the owner, can
i) remove a company's officers at will without criminal charges and forward new officers of its choosing,
ii) determine the pay of the officers,
iii) in a sale of the company, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-07-31/business/fl-bankatlantic-sale-approved-20120731_1_bankatlantic-bancorp-jarett-levan-alan-levan

going on and on in a like manner about the particulars of the company's methods of doing business. At the same we see the officers of such companies moving back and forth between seniors positions of the 'third party' and the company. In these conditions the ownership of the company is less than clear to me.

Perhaps something like the above measures are necessary to prevent abuses by bankers, at least while the government is responsible for backing money, but having said that does not change the blurring of ownership in my mind.